Primitive Intrigues of the 'Liberal Democracy'

For decades we had two images of a world that was half-good and half-bad. We were told that the Planet was half-free and functioning while the other half was repressed and malfunctioning. Descriptions showered over us from all directions – especially from the world of entertainment – depicting badly-served systems in which government officials were hampered by plots, intrigues, palace coups and what have you. These were the Communists, the military juntas and the dictators of every description whose main preoccupation was to survive the day, and be ready to live through more of the same tomorrow.

As to the system of the well-functioning world, it was depicted as being an open form of liberal democracy, made to function by officials whose only preoccupation was to do better today than they did yesterday, and do better tomorrow than they are doing today. Even though the system was made of factions, each adhering to a different ideology as to how the nation should be governed, officials of all stripes cooperated to better serve the greater good; that which pertains to the entire nation, rather than serve the narrow interests of one's own faction.

Thus, while divisions between the factions surfaced at election time when each highlighted its electoral program and contrasted it with that of the others, the differences were not called plots, intrigues or palace coups but political games of sterling quality. And this, they said, is what attested to the vibrancy of the democracy. It was all in the family, we were told, because – when it came to America, for example – politics stopped at the water's edge. This was supposed to mean that politicking on subjects pertaining to foreign policy was done on American soil, and never allowed to spill over to foreign lands.

Was that true or was it a lie? Well, if you believe Stephen F. Hayes, it was a lie – at least since the year 1979. He makes his points in an article he wrote under the title: “A Contrived Controversy,” published on March 14, 2015 in the Weekly Standard. To exonerate the 47 Republican senators who wrote a letter to the leaders of Iran warning them about powers they believe President Obama has to negotiate some things but does not really have, Hayes dredges from the archives incidences that go back to 1979 – events, he claims, are similar to that of today.

Here is how it all started, according to Hayes: In 1979, Senator Robert Byrd traveled to the Soviet Union to “explain the requirements of our Constitution.” Byrd later wrote: “I explained that I had come neither to praise nor condemn the treaty but to create a better understanding of it in the Senate and to explain to the Soviets the Senate's role in treaty making.”

Well, it is up to the readers to determine how much similarities there are between what Senator Robert Byrd did in 1979 and what 47 Republican senators did in 2015. Of course, it can be argued that there has been an escalation of such incidences between that year and today; an excuse that can be used to conclude that the letter of the Republican senators “needs no justification” which, in fact, is what Hayes is saying.

And this brings us to the point which this essay is making. It is that the system of liberal democracy, as described by Stephen Hayes, belies the image that had been painted of officials being preoccupied with doing their job better today than yesterday, and better tomorrow than today. The Hayes description also belies the image of officials cooperating together despite their different stripes, to better serve the entire nation. On the contrary, what comes out of that description is the image of officials hampered by plots, intrigues and palace coups; people whose main preoccupation is to survive today, and be ready for a tomorrow that may be worse.

As to the other systems in the world; be they communist, military juntas or dictatorships, there is no need to guess how well or how badly they are doing if and when we cannot see their internal workings. As it happens, we have the ability to assess the progress they are making by the relationships they openly develop with each other, the commerce they do among themselves, and by the projects they undertake jointly to improve the lives of their citizens. In this regard, things look awesome out there.

And while this is happening in the world at large, Hayes is breathing a sigh of relief because: “We are, finally, engaged in a serious debate … 47 senators told the enemy a hard truth about American government.” However “A serious administration would use the letter as leverage in negotiations.” Oh yeah! This would be playing American style politics with Iran. Luckily, this did not happen because, according to Hayes: “they've given us a contrived controversy.” Well, there is only one thing to say: May the controversy last till hell freezes over.